Research Paper Structure Checker
Validate that your manuscript follows proper academic structure, correct section order, no missing sections, and consistent heading hierarchy.
Check my manuscript, it's freeNo account required · Results in <2 minutes · PDF, Word & LaTeX
What does a structure checker do?
A research paper structure checker validates the architectural integrity of your manuscript. Most journals expect papers to follow the IMRaD format (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) or a similar structured approach. Structure errors, missing sections, sections in the wrong order, duplicate sections, or misplaced content, are among the most common causes of desk rejection. Our checker maps your manuscript's section structure against journal standards and flags every deviation, from a missing Conclusion to a Discussion that appears before Results.
Structure issues we detect
Missing sections
Identify absent required sections (Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, References).
Section ordering
Flag sections that appear in the wrong sequence (e.g., Results before Methods).
Duplicate sections
Detect when the same section type appears multiple times inappropriately.
Content misplacement
Find content placed in the wrong section (e.g., new results in Discussion).
Heading hierarchy
Verify consistent heading levels (H1/H2/H3) throughout the paper.
Section completeness
Flag sections that are present but contain insufficient content.
Checks relevant to this topic
Part of our 80+ automated checks
IMRaD compliance
Verify Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion structure.
Missing sections
Detect any absent required sections.
Section order
Confirm sections appear in the correct sequence.
Heading hierarchy
Validate H1, H2, H3 heading levels are consistent.
Content placement
Flag results or conclusions appearing in the wrong section.
The practical edge your peers already use
Across disciplines and career stages, researchers reduce bottlenecks and submit with confidence: clearer drafts, easier guideline compliance, and less back and forth with co‑authors and reviewers.
I use it to review my students' papers. It instantly highlights typos, missing references, and unclear sections, helping me focus my feedback on the quality of the research instead of surface errors.
Ilyass
Professor in Mechanical Engineering, ÉTS Montréal
I relied on it throughout my thesis to strengthen my writing. It suggested clearer phrasing, improved flow between sections, and ensured my references were complete before the final deadline.
Manon
Master's Student in Speech Therapy
I write research in both Portuguese and English, and it adapts perfectly to either language. It provided precise feedback in Portuguese, helping me maintain academic tone and consistency across my drafts.
Afonso
PhD Candidate, UFPE
It gave excellent advice on how to rephrase and present ideas more clearly and concisely. The suggestions helped me refine my arguments and make my research more impactful.
Félix
Postdoc Researcher, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology
A round of suggestions helped to generally refine the text of my paper and, moreover, to present some of its key points in a more focused form.
Oleg
Professor, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University
I use it to review my students' papers. It instantly highlights typos, missing references, and unclear sections, helping me focus my feedback on the quality of the research instead of surface errors.
Ilyass
Professor in Mechanical Engineering, ÉTS Montréal
I relied on it throughout my thesis to strengthen my writing. It suggested clearer phrasing, improved flow between sections, and ensured my references were complete before the final deadline.
Manon
Master's Student in Speech Therapy
I write research in both Portuguese and English, and it adapts perfectly to either language. It provided precise feedback in Portuguese, helping me maintain academic tone and consistency across my drafts.
Afonso
PhD Candidate, UFPE
It gave excellent advice on how to rephrase and present ideas more clearly and concisely. The suggestions helped me refine my arguments and make my research more impactful.
Félix
Postdoc Researcher, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology
A round of suggestions helped to generally refine the text of my paper and, moreover, to present some of its key points in a more focused form.
Oleg
Professor, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University
Frequently asked questions
IMRaD stands for Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. It is the standard structure for empirical research papers in most scientific disciplines. Some journals add an Abstract, Conclusion, and Acknowledgments sections.
Most scientific journals expect IMRaD or a close variant. Humanities papers often use a different structure (thesis, argument, evidence). Review papers may not have a Methods section. Our checker identifies the appropriate structure for your paper type.
Journals often allow additional sections (e.g., Theoretical Framework, Data Availability). Our checker validates the required sections are present without penalizing additional ones.
Missing or incomplete Discussion sections, and placing limitations in the wrong section, are among the most common structural issues we detect.